Ex Parte Pang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2013

10529283 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/529,283 03/25/2005 Zijing Pang ZEN-101 9150
56352 7590 04/01/2013
GLOBAL IP SERVICES
7285 Eagle Court
Winton, CA 95388
EXAMINER
PILKINGTON, JAMES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3656
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ZIJING PANG
____________________

Appeal 2011-001282
Application 10/529,283
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001282
Application 10/529,283

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 5-9, 21, and 27. Appellant does not appeal rejected
claims 22-26 and 28-31.1 Claims 2-4 and 10-20 have been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an elastic couple rotor turning gear.
Claim 1, reproduced below with reference numbers omitted, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. An elastic couple rotor turning gear, comprising:
a substantially elastic support is mounted on a
frame of a driven drive, the substantially elastic
support including an upper ring and a lower ring, the
upper ring being connected to the lower ring through a
plurality of substantially elastic ribs;
a casing with a U-shaped cross section being
connected to the substantially elastic support for
proving a substantially elastic connection between the
frame of the driven device and the elastic couple rotor
turning gear; a casing cover being firmly fixed on the
casing;
a plurality of the speed reducers, each with an
electric motor, being installed evenly or
symmetrically positioned around the driven device,
each speed reducer having an output shaft extending
into the casing under the casing cover, the output shaft

1 In the Appeal Brief, the Appellants state “[t]he appealed claims are: 1,5-
9,21 and 27” and that “claims 22-26 and 28-31 will be cancelled.” Br. 1;
see also Br. 2-3. Consistent with the Board’s precedential opinion Ex Parte
Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478 (BPAI 2008), the Examiner should cancel non-
appealed claims 22-26 and 28-31. See also Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 1215.03.
Appeal 2011-001282
Application 10/529,283

3
having a pinion gear mounded [sic] thereon and
meshed with a gear body of a bull gear positioned in
the casing, the bull gear being engaged with a shaft
coupling through keys via a key seat or an upright
post, and the shaft coupling being fixed on a rotor of
the driven device.

REFERENCES
Widdrington
Kiernan
US 3,252,349
US 3,407,681
May 24, 1966
Oct. 29, 1968
CN ’132 CN99222132.2 Aug. 8, 1999

REJECTIONS
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Widdrington. Ans. 4.
Claims 1 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Widdrington, Kiernan, and CN ’132. Ans. 5-8.
Claims 9, 21, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Widdrington and CN ’132. Ans. 8-10.
ANALYSIS
Claim 8 – Anticipation – Widdrington
Claim 8 calls for, inter alia, “a substantially elastic support”
connecting at least two drive units to the frame of a driven device. Br. 8
(Claims Appx.). The Examiner found that Widdrington’s base frame 11
corresponds to this limitation, reasoning that “everything has an elastic
property.” Ans. 4. Appellant disputes this finding, arguing that there is “no
suggestion or teaching of making the base frame 11 to be elastic.” Br. 3.
In construing “elastic,” the Examiner first noted that neither the claim
nor the Specification defines or otherwise limits the meaning of the term.
Appeal 2011-001282
Application 10/529,283

4
The Examiner then reasoned that “[s]ince every material, regardless of shape
or size has an elastic property, . . . the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claim is to construe any material as meeting the limitation of
‘substantially elastic,’ which makes Widdrington anticipate the claim.” Ans.
14.
We disagree with this interpretation. First, the Examiner’s
interpretation effectively eviscerates the term from the claim because any
structure would be considered substantially elastic. Claims are generally
construed to give effect to all terms in the claim, Bicon Inc. v. Straumann
Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and constructions that render terms
superfluous are disfavored. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d
1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render
phrases in claims superfluous). Second, the Examiner’s interpretation is
inconsistent with the Specification. As Appellant points out, the claimed
substantially elastic support is intended to replace the “rigid connection”
disclosed in the prior art. The Specification thus recognizes that not every
material or structure is “elastic,” contrary to the Examiner’s interpretation.
That is, under the Examiner’s interpretation, even the “rigid” prior art
structure would still be considered “elastic.”
During prosecution claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in
the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852,
858 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Where, as here, the Specification does not expressly
define a term, it is appropriate to consult a general or technical dictionary for
guidance in discerning its ordinary and customary meaning to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348
Appeal 2011-001282
Application 10/529,283

5
(Fed. Cir. 2010). A relevant and commonly understood definition of
“Elastic” is “[c]apable of sustaining deformation without permanent loss of
size or shape.” MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL
TERMS 2200 (6th ed. 2003). We discern nothing in the Specification
inconsistent with this ordinary meaning.
The Examiner has not pointed to anything in Widdrington that teaches
or suggests that the frame 11 is substantially elastic, i.e., substantially
capable of sustaining deformation without permanent loss of size or shape.
The Examiner appears to rely on two findings in this regard: (1) that
Widdrington “does not state that the material used in making the device is
rigid” (Ans. 14); and (2) that Widdrington’s motor mount 11 “has four
circles or openings in it . . . to reduce any rigidity that might be in the
mounting member in the same way that the ribs of the instant application
remove rigidity from the mount.” Id. (citing Widdrington, fig. 1). Neither
of these findings persuades us that Widdrington’s frame 11 is substantially
elastic. We accord little weight to the fact that Widdrington does not
expressly state that frame 11 is rigid. Cf. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc. v. View
Eng'g, Inc., 112 F.3d 1163, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[O]ne does not usually
meet a statutory requirement for disclosure with silence.”). And we consider
it speculative to infer that the four circular openings in frame 11 have any
effect on the frame’s rigidity.
Because the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that Widdrington discloses the claimed “substantially elastic
support,” we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as
anticipated by Widdrington.

Appeal 2011-001282
Application 10/529,283

6
Claims 1 and 5-7 – Obviousness – Widdrington, Kiernan, and CN ’132
Claim 1, like claim 8, calls for a “substantially elastic support” to
provide a “substantially elastic connection” between the frame of a driven
device and a plurality of drive units or “speed reducers.” Br. 8 (Claims
Appx.). Claim 1 further specifies that the substantially elastic support
include upper and lower rings connected together by a plurality of
substantially elastic ribs. Id. Claims 5-7 depend from claim 1. Id. The
Examiner found that CN ’132 “teaches a substantially elastic support which
includes an upper ring (to the right of 4 in Figure 1) and a lower ring (to the
left of 4 in Figure 1), the upper ring being connected to the lower ring
through a plurality of substantially elastic ribs (at 4).” Ans. 7-8.
Appellant disputes this finding. According to Appellant, “nowhere in
[CN ’132] can it be found a teaching or implication that the coupling arm 4
(a coupling arm for connecting a speed reducer 2 and the rotor) is an
‘elastic’ element. To the contrary, the coupling arm 4 in [CN ’132] is
understood to be ‘rigid’ since otherwise the rotation may not be properly
transmitted to the rotor.” Br. 5-6.
Assuming arguendo that the structure that the Examiner identified
corresponds to the claimed rings and ribs, we find nothing in CN ’132 that
teaches or suggests that this structure is substantially elastic. To the extent
that the Examiner relies on Widdrington to teach the elastic aspect of the
limitation, we disagree for the reasons stated above. We therefore do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5-7 as obvious over
Widdrington, Kiernan, and CN ’132.

Appeal 2011-001282
Application 10/529,283

7
Claims 9, 21 and 27 – Obviousness – Widdrington and CN ’132
Claim 9 depends from claim 8, and, like claim 1, further requires that
the substantially elastic support include upper and lower rings connected
together by a plurality of substantially elastic ribs. Br. 8. Claims 21 and 27
ultimately depend from claim 9. Id. at 8-9. The Examiner rejected these
claims based on the erroneous finding that CN ’132 teaches this structure.
We therefore do not sustain this rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE: The Examiner’s rejection of
claim 8 as anticipated by Widdrington; the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 5-7 as unpatentable over Widdrington, Kiernan, and CN ’132; and the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 21 and 27 as unpatentable over
Widdrington and CN ’132.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
REVERSED

msc